Review a spec or a plan before implementation starts — completeness, ambiguity, feasibility, executable steps, missing dependencies. For reviewing the project itself (code, UX, architecture, deps, docs) use the /review-change, /review-experience, /review-health and /review-release commands instead.
Scanned 9/2/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add mxrsv/agents-skills --skill review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/mxrsv-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: review
description: Review a spec or a plan before implementation starts — completeness, ambiguity, feasibility, executable steps, missing dependencies. For reviewing the project itself (code, UX, architecture, deps, docs) use the /review-change, /review-experience, /review-health and /review-release commands instead.
---
# Review (specs and plans)
> **Harness note.** Skill names are written `/name` (Claude Code slash form); in Codex invoke the same skill as `$name`. Sub-agent dispatch is shown as Claude Code's `Agent({ subagent_type: "general-purpose", … })` — in Codex spawn a sub-agent with the same prompt, or apply the contracts inline, in sequence, when sub-agents are unavailable.
This skill reviews **artifacts you are about to build from** — a spec or a plan.
**It does not review the project.** Code, UX, runtime, tests, security, dependencies and docs drift are covered by the review framework commands:
| Command | Reviews |
| --- | --- |
| `/review-change` | correctness, tests, security of a change |
| `/review-experience` | real user flow in a browser |
| `/review-health` | architecture, dependencies, docs/contracts |
| `/review-release` | synthesis of the above into a ship decision |
## Dispatch, don't self-review
Send the artifact to a subagent so the review is not anchored by whoever wrote it.
```
Agent tool:
subagent_type: "general-purpose"
name: "review-<spec|plan>"
prompt: |
OBJECTIVE: {what this spec/plan is for, 1-2 sentences}
UPSTREAM CONTEXT: {approved spec, or "no spec attached — skip scope check"}
ITERATION: {X}/3
{if iteration > 1: PREVIOUS FINDINGS: {fixed / outstanding}}
ARTIFACT:
{full text}
Review criteria: {inline the contents of rules/review-criteria.md}
```
Do NOT paste codebase contents — the subagent can read and search the codebase and should look for itself.
## Lens
- **spec** — completeness, ambiguity, feasibility, edge cases, success criteria
- **plan** — ordering, executable steps, verification path, missing files or dependencies, whether each phase ends in something runnable
## Verdict handling
- **EXECUTABLE: Yes** → present the report. Done.
- **EXECUTABLE: Partial** → present the report. The user decides whether to proceed.
- **EXECUTABLE: No** → fix HIGH/CRITICAL in the artifact, re-dispatch. Max 3 iterations.
- **3 iterations exhausted** → stop and escalate to the user.
## Rules
- Report findings before proposing fixes; order by severity; include file references.
- No findings → say so explicitly and name the residual risk.
- Do not self-congratulate or bury findings under a summary.
- Do not fix while in review mode unless asked.
Criteria detail: [rules/review-criteria.md](rules/review-criteria.md)

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!